"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

All of those are less than 500 days. So the answer is no one has done the research.

True. After 500 days maybe the adaptation is complete and the potential for negative health risks completely disappears. This is impossible to figure out theoretically. It has to be done in order to find out. But it should of course not be done Dr. Mengele style, but for a purpose that makes the risk of discovering the unknown worthwhile. Like spending the time on the Moon or Mars or Mars' moons. Not spending it in a nowhere Gateway.

But it should of course not be done Dr. Mengele style, but for a purpose that makes the risk of discovering the unknown worthwhile. Like spending the time on the Moon or Mars or Mars' moons. Not spending it in a nowhere Gateway.

But it should of course not be done Dr. Mengele style, but for a purpose that makes the risk of discovering the unknown worthwhile. Like spending the time on the Moon or Mars or Mars' moons. Not spending it in a nowhere Gateway.

So a space-station is like Auschwitz?

"Hyperbole. Not just for trajectories."

A space station that "tries out" how long humans can survive in it, really is! That's the profit from torturing people. It is completely different to send a crew out on a dangerous exploration mission that would return great discoveries if it works. The maximum potential loss is the same in both cases. The difference is that one of the cases has a possible upside. The other does not. It is a failure of design, and of humanity, to pick the latter.

All of those are less than 500 days. So the answer is no one has done the research.

Those are just single stays. For cumulative time in space, there are currently 19 people over 500 days (soon to be 20 with Peggy Whitson becoming the first woman to reach that mark), the current record holder is Gennady Padalka, who has spent 878 days in space.

"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

All of those are less than 500 days. So the answer is no one has done the research.

Those are just single stays. For cumulative time in space, there are currently 19 people over 500 days (soon to be 20 with Peggy Whitson becoming the first woman to reach that mark), the current record holder is Gennady Padalka, who has spent 878 days in space.

Speaking as someone who has studied such "space hypochondriacs" issues formally, including the research at CERN on human models, and also active studies by SC from Mercury to past Pluto, I can tell you that not a one of them when asked would travel to Mars.

All of those are less than 500 days. So the answer is no one has done the research.

Those are just single stays. For cumulative time in space, there are currently 19 people over 500 days (soon to be 20 with Peggy Whitson becoming the first woman to reach that mark), the current record holder is Gennady Padalka, who has spent 878 days in space.

I'm also one who is very doubtful about long term <1.0G human viability, however, I think it should be tested.

To start with, it would seem very useful to try establishing a long term mouse/rat/etc. colony on the ISS. I realize there are serious logistical issues with this, but we really do need to know more about this stuff.

It would be even more useful to have such colonies in a centrifuge so we could see what partial G does.

The notion that we should just go to Mars or the Moon and see what happens with human pregnancy seems like a very bad idea.

I think partial g research is something that needs to be looked into which is one reason I was really hyped about the Nautilus-X concept.Also why I favor the SLS derived DSH as the larger diameter would allow for a larger centrifuge for exercising in or small animals could be placed in and observed.

I'm also one who is very doubtful about long term <1.0G human viability, however, I think it should be tested.

To start with, it would seem very useful to try establishing a long term mouse/rat/etc. colony on the ISS. I realize there are serious logistical issues with this, but we really do need to know more about this stuff.

It would be even more useful to have such colonies in a centrifuge so we could see what partial G does.

The notion that we should just go to Mars or the Moon and see what happens with human pregnancy seems like a very bad idea.

I'm curious what you think the threshold is then? We have strong evidence that long term zero-gravity exposure is harmful long-term in spite of regular exercise, and three centuries of biology research will tell you these effects always exist on a sliding scale.

Actually it will show that for many things there is a threshold below which there are no discernible consequences.

I'm also one who is very doubtful about long term <1.0G human viability, however, I think it should be tested.

To start with, it would seem very useful to try establishing a long term mouse/rat/etc. colony on the ISS. I realize there are serious logistical issues with this, but we really do need to know more about this stuff.

It would be even more useful to have such colonies in a centrifuge so we could see what partial G does.

The notion that we should just go to Mars or the Moon and see what happens with human pregnancy seems like a very bad idea.

Twenty mice riding inside Dragon will be examined after their return to the ground to aid researchers studying how spaceflight affects vision and movement.

Quote

The mice will come back to Earth inside the Dragon capsule alive, and SpaceX will hand over their transporters to scientists upon return to port in Southern California.

From what I could tell in that article the centrifuge capability of the MHU wasn't needed for these particular experiments.

But anyways... a very small step in the right direction. Hopefully they have some experiments lined up that will use the centrifuge soon.

I think the first mice to live in JAXA's MHU were delivered on CRS-9 last year. IIRC CRS-4 was the first SpaceX delivery of mice to the ISS but I don't think they were in the MHU.

Logged

"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

My understanding is that 12 young mice were kept in the MHU for 35 days to develop, 6 in the 1G centrifuge, the other 6 in microgravity. I've not found a complete report about the results, but it seems that the ones in microgravity had substantially poorer muscle development. All were returned alive and are being studied.

IMHO this is extremely important research, but doesn't cover the issue of reproduction in < 1G. The MHU only has individual cages, not what's needed for doing a multi-generational study.

Also why I favor the SLS derived DSH as the larger diameter would allow for a larger centrifuge for exercising in or small animals could be placed in and observed.

If the SLS lifted a 8m diameter DSH I'm not sure that would be a large enough diameter to demonstrate any benefits of spin gravity.

For instance, assuming a person laid down along the inside of the outer wall (i.e. 4m from the center of rotation for a 8m diameter vessel) it would take about 5 RPM to create just 0.1 gravity. We obviously lack hard data on what can be tolerated, but I think an 8m diameter vessel is far too small to do micro-gravity testing.

Besides, at this point artificial gravity doesn't seem to be a goal for the DSG, especially since the notional missions all seem to be short duration ones, meaning zero G won't be a big problem for missions to our Moon.

« Last Edit: 10/23/2017 02:25 PM by Coastal Ron »

Logged

If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Also why I favor the SLS derived DSH as the larger diameter would allow for a larger centrifuge for exercising in or small animals could be placed in and observed.

If the SLS lifted a 8m diameter DSH I'm not sure that would be a large enough diameter to demonstrate any benefits of spin gravity.

For instance, assuming a person laid down along the inside of the outer wall (i.e. 4m from the center of rotation for a 8m diameter vessel) it would take about 5 RPM to create just 0.1 gravity. We obviously lack hard data on what can be tolerated, but I think an 8m diameter vessel is far too small to do micro-gravity testing.

Besides, at this point artificial gravity doesn't seem to be a goal for the DSG, especially since the notional missions all seem to be short duration ones, meaning zero G won't be a big problem for missions to our Moon.

People are about 2 m tall so splitting the DSH down the middle into two 4m high modules should work. Expand a truss to separate the two modules. NASA has developed trusses that expand.